Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1341 | control, N = 671 | treatment, N = 671 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 132 | 50.75 ± 12.55 (25 - 74) | 51.09 ± 12.48 (25 - 74) | 50.42 ± 12.70 (28 - 73) | 0.760 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 134 | >0.999 | |||
f | 102 (76%) | 51 (76%) | 51 (76%) | ||
m | 32 (24%) | 16 (24%) | 16 (24%) | ||
occupation | 134 | 0.690 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.5%) | 2 (3.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 16 (12%) | 8 (12%) | 8 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (9.0%) | 5 (7.5%) | 7 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
part_time | 24 (18%) | 11 (16%) | 13 (19%) | ||
retired | 36 (27%) | 18 (27%) | 18 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 6 (4.5%) | 3 (4.5%) | 3 (4.5%) | ||
student | 2 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.5%) | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (1.5%) | ||
unemploy | 32 (24%) | 19 (28%) | 13 (19%) | ||
marital | 134 | 0.756 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.5%) | ||
divore | 13 (9.7%) | 9 (13%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (3.0%) | 2 (3.0%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
married | 38 (28%) | 19 (28%) | 19 (28%) | ||
none | 68 (51%) | 32 (48%) | 36 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.2%) | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (1.5%) | ||
widow | 7 (5.2%) | 3 (4.5%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
edu | 134 | 0.351 | |||
bachelor | 34 (25%) | 13 (19%) | 21 (31%) | ||
diploma | 25 (19%) | 16 (24%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (2.2%) | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (1.5%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (9.0%) | 5 (7.5%) | 7 (10%) | ||
primary | 8 (6.0%) | 2 (3.0%) | 6 (9.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (12%) | 9 (13%) | 7 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 31 (23%) | 18 (27%) | 13 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 5 (3.7%) | 2 (3.0%) | 3 (4.5%) | ||
fam_income | 134 | 0.960 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.5%) | 2 (3.0%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (5.2%) | 3 (4.5%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 6 (4.5%) | 2 (3.0%) | 4 (6.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (2.2%) | 1 (1.5%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 5 (3.7%) | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (3.0%) | ||
20001_above | 26 (19%) | 15 (22%) | 11 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 19 (14%) | 11 (16%) | 8 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (10%) | 6 (9.0%) | 8 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 11 (8.2%) | 6 (9.0%) | 5 (7.5%) | ||
8001_10000 | 10 (7.5%) | 4 (6.0%) | 6 (9.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 27 (20%) | 14 (21%) | 13 (19%) | ||
medication | 134 | 118 (88%) | 59 (88%) | 59 (88%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 131 | 15.31 ± 10.27 (0 - 56) | 16.10 ± 11.08 (0 - 56) | 14.49 ± 9.36 (0 - 35) | 0.372 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 129 | 35.67 ± 14.14 (10 - 65) | 34.80 ± 12.79 (10 - 61) | 36.54 ± 15.44 (14 - 65) | 0.487 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1341 | control, N = 671 | treatment, N = 671 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 134 | 3.22 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 3.28 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.15 ± 1.13 (1 - 5) | 0.509 |
recovery_stage_b | 134 | 17.99 ± 2.81 (8 - 24) | 17.88 ± 2.99 (8 - 24) | 18.09 ± 2.63 (13 - 24) | 0.668 |
ras_confidence | 134 | 30.18 ± 5.01 (17 - 45) | 29.94 ± 4.63 (17 - 40) | 30.42 ± 5.39 (18 - 45) | 0.583 |
ras_willingness | 134 | 11.82 ± 2.06 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 1.98 (5 - 15) | 11.94 ± 2.14 (7 - 15) | 0.504 |
ras_goal | 134 | 17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.21 ± 2.88 (11 - 24) | 17.57 ± 3.30 (11 - 25) | 0.505 |
ras_reliance | 134 | 13.32 ± 2.92 (5 - 20) | 13.13 ± 2.80 (5 - 18) | 13.51 ± 3.06 (7 - 20) | 0.462 |
ras_domination | 134 | 9.99 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.21 ± 2.31 (3 - 15) | 9.76 ± 2.47 (3 - 15) | 0.281 |
symptom | 134 | 29.81 ± 9.29 (14 - 56) | 29.87 ± 9.48 (14 - 55) | 29.76 ± 9.18 (15 - 56) | 0.948 |
slof_work | 134 | 22.57 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.84 ± 4.27 (13 - 30) | 22.31 ± 5.01 (10 - 30) | 0.517 |
slof_relationship | 134 | 25.39 ± 5.92 (9 - 35) | 25.00 ± 5.95 (9 - 35) | 25.78 ± 5.90 (11 - 35) | 0.450 |
satisfaction | 134 | 20.90 ± 7.11 (5 - 35) | 20.19 ± 6.84 (5 - 33) | 21.61 ± 7.35 (5 - 35) | 0.250 |
mhc_emotional | 134 | 11.11 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.81 ± 3.71 (3 - 17) | 11.42 ± 3.80 (4 - 18) | 0.347 |
mhc_social | 134 | 15.22 ± 5.51 (5 - 30) | 15.01 ± 5.53 (5 - 30) | 15.43 ± 5.52 (5 - 29) | 0.662 |
mhc_psychological | 134 | 22.17 ± 6.38 (6 - 36) | 21.91 ± 6.11 (7 - 36) | 22.43 ± 6.67 (6 - 36) | 0.637 |
resilisnce | 134 | 16.78 ± 4.69 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 17.37 ± 5.05 (7 - 30) | 0.141 |
social_provision | 134 | 13.69 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.25 ± 2.53 (5 - 20) | 14.12 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 0.077 |
els_value_living | 134 | 17.03 ± 3.14 (5 - 25) | 16.58 ± 2.90 (6 - 22) | 17.48 ± 3.31 (5 - 25) | 0.099 |
els_life_fulfill | 134 | 12.79 ± 3.46 (4 - 20) | 12.30 ± 3.32 (5 - 19) | 13.28 ± 3.55 (4 - 20) | 0.099 |
els | 134 | 29.82 ± 5.97 (9 - 45) | 28.88 ± 5.51 (11 - 38) | 30.76 ± 6.31 (9 - 45) | 0.068 |
social_connect | 134 | 26.25 ± 9.27 (8 - 48) | 26.88 ± 9.16 (8 - 48) | 25.63 ± 9.40 (8 - 48) | 0.436 |
shs_agency | 134 | 14.43 ± 5.19 (3 - 24) | 13.94 ± 4.81 (3 - 21) | 14.93 ± 5.54 (3 - 24) | 0.274 |
shs_pathway | 134 | 16.19 ± 4.02 (4 - 24) | 15.84 ± 3.86 (5 - 24) | 16.55 ± 4.18 (4 - 24) | 0.304 |
shs | 134 | 30.63 ± 8.82 (7 - 48) | 29.78 ± 8.31 (8 - 45) | 31.48 ± 9.29 (7 - 48) | 0.266 |
esteem | 134 | 12.60 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.66 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.55 ± 1.70 (10 - 20) | 0.716 |
mlq_search | 134 | 14.83 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 14.66 ± 3.36 (6 - 21) | 15.00 ± 3.79 (3 - 21) | 0.580 |
mlq_presence | 134 | 13.55 ± 4.23 (3 - 21) | 13.36 ± 3.84 (4 - 21) | 13.75 ± 4.60 (3 - 21) | 0.597 |
mlq | 134 | 28.38 ± 6.99 (6 - 42) | 28.01 ± 6.32 (10 - 40) | 28.75 ± 7.63 (6 - 42) | 0.547 |
empower | 134 | 19.33 ± 4.32 (6 - 30) | 18.96 ± 4.20 (11 - 30) | 19.70 ± 4.43 (6 - 30) | 0.319 |
ismi_resistance | 134 | 14.58 ± 2.54 (5 - 20) | 14.51 ± 2.20 (10 - 20) | 14.66 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 0.736 |
ismi_discrimation | 134 | 11.51 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 11.97 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.04 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 0.089 |
sss_affective | 134 | 9.86 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.06 ± 3.55 (3 - 18) | 9.66 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 0.512 |
sss_behavior | 134 | 9.56 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 9.90 ± 3.94 (3 - 18) | 9.22 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 0.301 |
sss_cognitive | 134 | 8.06 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 8.21 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 7.91 ± 3.51 (3 - 18) | 0.636 |
sss | 134 | 27.48 ± 10.03 (9 - 54) | 28.16 ± 10.36 (9 - 54) | 26.79 ± 9.71 (9 - 54) | 0.430 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.140 | 3.01, 3.56 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.134 | 0.199 | -0.524, 0.255 | 0.500 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.046 | 0.235 | -0.414, 0.507 | 0.845 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.435 | 0.335 | -0.221, 1.09 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.353 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.209 | 0.499 | -0.768, 1.19 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.294 | 0.546 | -1.36, 0.776 | 0.592 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.690 | 0.778 | -0.836, 2.22 | 0.378 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 0.624 | 28.7, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.478 | 0.882 | -1.25, 2.21 | 0.589 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.734 | 0.751 | -0.739, 2.21 | 0.332 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 1.072 | -1.08, 3.13 | 0.343 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.252 | 11.2, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.239 | 0.357 | -0.460, 0.938 | 0.504 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.590 | 0.299 | -1.18, -0.004 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.796 | 0.427 | -0.040, 1.63 | 0.067 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.387 | 16.4, 18.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.358 | 0.548 | -0.716, 1.43 | 0.514 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.389 | 0.497 | -1.36, 0.585 | 0.436 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.52 | 0.709 | 0.134, 2.91 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.356 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.373 | 0.503 | -0.613, 1.36 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.353 | 0.406 | -0.442, 1.15 | 0.388 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 0.579 | -0.133, 2.14 | 0.088 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.287 | 9.65, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.448 | 0.406 | -1.24, 0.348 | 0.271 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.260 | 0.427 | -1.10, 0.577 | 0.544 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.31 | 0.609 | 0.120, 2.51 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.139 | 27.6, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.104 | 1.611 | -3.26, 3.05 | 0.948 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.111 | 1.086 | -2.24, 2.02 | 0.919 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.40 | 1.551 | -4.44, 1.64 | 0.369 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.567 | 21.7, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.522 | 0.802 | -2.09, 1.05 | 0.516 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.308 | 0.650 | -1.58, 0.966 | 0.637 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.382 | 0.928 | -1.44, 2.20 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.719 | 23.6, 26.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.776 | 1.017 | -1.22, 2.77 | 0.447 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.17 | 0.772 | -2.68, 0.348 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.88 | 1.102 | -0.276, 4.05 | 0.092 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.2 | 0.874 | 18.5, 21.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.42 | 1.236 | -1.00, 3.84 | 0.253 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.526 | 1.071 | -1.57, 2.62 | 0.625 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.478 | 1.528 | -2.52, 3.47 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.455 | 9.91, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.612 | 0.644 | -0.650, 1.87 | 0.343 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.358 | 0.502 | -0.625, 1.34 | 0.478 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.231 | 0.716 | -1.63, 1.17 | 0.748 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.693 | 13.7, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.418 | 0.979 | -1.50, 2.34 | 0.670 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.638 | 0.870 | -1.07, 2.34 | 0.467 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.420 | 1.242 | -2.85, 2.01 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 0.805 | 20.3, 23.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.522 | 1.138 | -1.71, 2.75 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.659 | 0.983 | -1.27, 2.59 | 0.505 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.060 | 1.403 | -2.81, 2.69 | 0.966 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.559 | 15.1, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 0.791 | -0.356, 2.74 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.165 | 0.712 | -1.23, 1.56 | 0.817 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.33 | 1.016 | -0.659, 3.32 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.349 | 12.6, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.866 | 0.493 | -0.101, 1.83 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.575 | 0.466 | -1.49, 0.338 | 0.221 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.712 | 0.665 | -0.591, 2.01 | 0.288 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.386 | 15.8, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.896 | 0.546 | -0.174, 1.97 | 0.103 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.267 | 0.483 | -0.679, 1.21 | 0.582 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.216 | 0.689 | -1.13, 1.57 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.414 | 11.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.985 | 0.585 | -0.161, 2.13 | 0.094 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.558 | 0.411 | -0.247, 1.36 | 0.179 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.239 | 0.586 | -1.39, 0.910 | 0.686 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.727 | 27.5, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.88 | 1.029 | -0.135, 3.90 | 0.070 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.791 | 0.749 | -0.676, 2.26 | 0.295 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.014 | 1.068 | -2.08, 2.11 | 0.989 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.147 | 24.6, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.25 | 1.623 | -4.43, 1.93 | 0.441 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.28 | 1.213 | -1.10, 3.66 | 0.295 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.67 | 1.731 | -7.06, -0.277 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.632 | 12.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.985 | 0.893 | -0.766, 2.74 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.088 | 0.683 | -1.25, 1.43 | 0.898 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.748 | 0.975 | -1.16, 2.66 | 0.446 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.487 | 14.9, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.716 | 0.688 | -0.632, 2.07 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.172 | 0.527 | -0.861, 1.20 | 0.745 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.047 | 0.752 | -1.52, 1.43 | 0.951 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.068 | 27.7, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.510 | -1.26, 4.66 | 0.262 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.260 | 1.108 | -1.91, 2.43 | 0.816 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.688 | 1.581 | -2.41, 3.79 | 0.665 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.190 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.104 | 0.269 | -0.631, 0.422 | 0.698 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.044 | 0.306 | -0.557, 0.644 | 0.888 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.142 | 0.437 | -0.715, 0.998 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.431 | 13.8, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.343 | 0.609 | -0.850, 1.54 | 0.574 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.183 | 0.600 | -0.993, 1.36 | 0.762 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.238 | 0.856 | -1.91, 1.44 | 0.782 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.513 | 12.4, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.388 | 0.725 | -1.03, 1.81 | 0.593 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.256 | 0.634 | -0.986, 1.50 | 0.687 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.002 | 0.904 | -1.77, 1.77 | 0.998 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.853 | 26.3, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.731 | 1.207 | -1.63, 3.10 | 0.545 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.442 | 1.094 | -1.70, 2.59 | 0.688 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.219 | 1.561 | -3.28, 2.84 | 0.889 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.528 | 17.9, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.746 | 0.746 | -0.716, 2.21 | 0.319 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.181 | 0.550 | -0.897, 1.26 | 0.744 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.470 | 0.785 | -2.01, 1.07 | 0.551 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.306 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.149 | 0.433 | -0.700, 0.998 | 0.731 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.030 | 0.451 | -0.914, 0.853 | 0.947 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.491 | 0.643 | -0.768, 1.75 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.385 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.925 | 0.544 | -1.99, 0.141 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.355 | 0.459 | -1.25, 0.545 | 0.442 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.328 | 0.655 | -0.956, 1.61 | 0.619 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.426 | 9.22, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.403 | 0.603 | -1.59, 0.779 | 0.505 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.152 | 0.496 | -0.820, 1.13 | 0.760 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 0.708 | -2.55, 0.227 | 0.106 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.90 | 0.451 | 9.01, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.672 | 0.637 | -1.92, 0.577 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.012 | 0.536 | -1.06, 1.04 | 0.982 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.667 | 0.765 | -2.17, 0.832 | 0.386 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.21 | 0.441 | 7.35, 9.07 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.299 | 0.623 | -1.52, 0.923 | 0.633 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.716 | 0.519 | -0.302, 1.73 | 0.172 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.35 | 0.741 | -2.80, 0.107 | 0.074 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.217 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.721 | -4.75, 2.00 | 0.426 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.799 | 1.318 | -1.78, 3.38 | 0.547 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.04 | 1.880 | -6.73, 0.643 | 0.111 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [3.01, 3.56], t(181) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.26], t(181) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51], t(181) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(181) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.19, 18.57], t(181) = 50.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.19], t(181) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.78], t(181) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.22], t(181) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.94 (95% CI [28.72, 31.16], t(181) = 48.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.21], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.21], t(181) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.13], t(181) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.21, 12.20], t(181) = 46.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.94], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.18, -3.55e-03], t(181) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.57, -1.73e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.63], t(181) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.21 (95% CI [16.45, 17.97], t(181) = 44.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(181) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.58], t(181) = -0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [0.13, 2.91], t(181) = 2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.13 (95% CI [12.44, 13.83], t(181) = 36.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.36], t(181) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.15], t(181) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(181) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.65, 10.77], t(181) = 35.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.35], t(181) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.58], t(181) = -0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [0.12, 2.51], t(181) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.05, 1.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [27.63, 32.10], t(181) = 26.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-3.26, 3.05], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.02], t(181) = -0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.44, 1.64], t(181) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.84 (95% CI [21.72, 23.95], t(181) = 40.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.05], t(181) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.97], t(181) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.20], t(181) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.00 (95% CI [23.59, 26.41], t(181) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.77], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(181) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.28, 4.05], t(181) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.19 (95% CI [18.48, 21.91], t(181) = 23.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.84], t(181) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.57, 2.62], t(181) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-2.52, 3.47], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.81 (95% CI [9.91, 11.70], t(181) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.87], t(181) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.34], t(181) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.17], t(181) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.01 (95% CI [13.66, 16.37], t(181) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.34], t(181) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.34], t(181) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.85, 2.01], t(181) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.91 (95% CI [20.33, 23.49], t(181) = 27.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.75], t(181) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.59], t(181) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.69], t(181) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -9.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.08, 17.28], t(181) = 28.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.74], t(181) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.56], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.32], t(181) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.57, 13.94], t(181) = 38.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.83], t(181) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.34], t(181) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.01], t(181) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.83, 17.34], t(181) = 42.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.97], t(181) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.21], t(181) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.57], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.30 (95% CI [11.49, 13.11], t(181) = 29.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.13], t(181) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.36], t(181) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.91], t(181) = -0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.88 (95% CI [27.46, 30.31], t(181) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.90], t(181) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.26], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.11], t(181) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.63, 29.13], t(181) = 23.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.93], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-1.10, 3.66], t(181) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.67, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.28], t(181) = -2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.74, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.94 (95% CI [12.70, 15.18], t(181) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.74], t(181) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.43], t(181) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.66], t(181) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.84 (95% CI [14.88, 16.79], t(181) = 32.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.07], t(181) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.20], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.43], t(181) = -0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.78 (95% CI [27.68, 31.87], t(181) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-1.26, 4.66], t(181) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.43], t(181) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 3.79], t(181) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.66 (95% CI [12.28, 13.03], t(181) = 66.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.42], t(181) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.64], t(181) = 0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.00], t(181) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.66 (95% CI [13.81, 15.50], t(181) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.54], t(181) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.36], t(181) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.44], t(181) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.36 (95% CI [12.35, 14.36], t(181) = 26.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.81], t(181) = 0.54, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.50], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.05e-03, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.77], t(181) = 2.26e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 4.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.01 (95% CI [26.34, 29.69], t(181) = 32.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.63, 3.10], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.59], t(181) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.84], t(181) = -0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.96 (95% CI [17.92, 19.99], t(181) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.21], t(181) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.26], t(181) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.07], t(181) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.51 (95% CI [13.91, 15.11], t(181) = 47.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.00], t(181) = 0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.85], t(181) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(181) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.22, 12.72], t(181) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.14], t(181) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.54], t(181) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.61], t(181) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.22, 10.90], t(181) = 23.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.78], t(181) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.13], t(181) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.23], t(181) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.90 (95% CI [9.01, 10.78], t(181) = 21.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.92, 0.58], t(181) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.04], t(181) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.32e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.83], t(181) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.35, 9.07], t(181) = 18.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.92], t(181) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.73], t(181) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 0.11], t(181) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.16 (95% CI [25.78, 30.55], t(181) = 23.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.75, 2.00], t(181) = -0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.38], t(181) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.04, 95% CI [-6.73, 0.64], t(181) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 584.573 | 594.267 | -289.287 | 578.573 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 586.404 | 605.791 | -287.202 | 574.404 | 4.169 | 3 | 0.244 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 920.475 | 930.168 | -457.237 | 914.475 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 924.992 | 944.379 | -456.496 | 912.992 | 1.482 | 3 | 0.686 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,116.756 | 1,126.449 | -555.378 | 1,110.756 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,115.929 | 1,135.316 | -551.965 | 1,103.929 | 6.826 | 3 | 0.078 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 775.482 | 785.176 | -384.741 | 769.482 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 775.768 | 795.155 | -381.884 | 763.768 | 5.714 | 3 | 0.126 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 945.110 | 954.804 | -469.555 | 939.110 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 943.836 | 963.223 | -465.918 | 931.836 | 7.274 | 3 | 0.064 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 907.007 | 916.701 | -450.504 | 901.007 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 900.601 | 919.987 | -444.300 | 888.601 | 12.407 | 3 | 0.006 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 844.873 | 854.566 | -419.436 | 838.873 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 844.778 | 864.165 | -416.389 | 832.778 | 6.094 | 3 | 0.107 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,314.119 | 1,323.812 | -654.059 | 1,308.119 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,318.151 | 1,337.538 | -653.076 | 1,306.151 | 1.967 | 3 | 0.579 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,070.215 | 1,079.908 | -532.108 | 1,064.215 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,075.647 | 1,095.034 | -531.824 | 1,063.647 | 0.568 | 3 | 0.904 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,156.678 | 1,166.371 | -575.339 | 1,150.678 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,158.141 | 1,177.527 | -573.070 | 1,146.141 | 4.538 | 3 | 0.209 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,240.516 | 1,250.210 | -617.258 | 1,234.516 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,243.767 | 1,263.153 | -615.883 | 1,231.767 | 2.749 | 3 | 0.432 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 984.871 | 994.565 | -489.436 | 978.871 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 989.472 | 1,008.859 | -488.736 | 977.472 | 1.399 | 3 | 0.706 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,153.864 | 1,163.557 | -573.932 | 1,147.864 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,159.131 | 1,178.518 | -573.566 | 1,147.131 | 0.733 | 3 | 0.865 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,207.631 | 1,217.325 | -600.816 | 1,201.631 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,212.586 | 1,231.973 | -600.293 | 1,200.586 | 1.045 | 3 | 0.790 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,082.481 | 1,092.174 | -538.240 | 1,076.481 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,080.431 | 1,099.817 | -534.215 | 1,068.431 | 8.050 | 3 | 0.045 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 908.698 | 918.391 | -451.349 | 902.698 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 908.287 | 927.673 | -448.143 | 896.287 | 6.411 | 3 | 0.093 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 938.537 | 948.231 | -466.269 | 932.537 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 940.009 | 959.396 | -464.005 | 928.009 | 4.528 | 3 | 0.210 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 942.479 | 952.172 | -468.239 | 936.479 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 943.343 | 962.730 | -465.672 | 931.343 | 5.135 | 3 | 0.162 |
els | null | 3 | 1,157.806 | 1,167.499 | -575.903 | 1,151.806 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,158.034 | 1,177.421 | -573.017 | 1,146.034 | 5.772 | 3 | 0.123 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,331.680 | 1,341.373 | -662.840 | 1,325.680 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,331.188 | 1,350.574 | -659.594 | 1,319.188 | 6.492 | 3 | 0.090 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,107.411 | 1,117.105 | -550.706 | 1,101.411 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,110.174 | 1,129.561 | -549.087 | 1,098.174 | 3.238 | 3 | 0.356 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,008.016 | 1,017.710 | -501.008 | 1,002.016 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,012.733 | 1,032.120 | -500.367 | 1,000.733 | 1.283 | 3 | 0.733 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,298.713 | 1,308.407 | -646.357 | 1,292.713 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,302.353 | 1,321.740 | -645.177 | 1,290.353 | 2.360 | 3 | 0.501 |
esteem | null | 3 | 691.319 | 701.012 | -342.659 | 685.319 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 696.849 | 716.235 | -342.424 | 684.849 | 0.470 | 3 | 0.925 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 985.210 | 994.904 | -489.605 | 979.210 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 990.852 | 1,010.239 | -489.426 | 978.852 | 0.358 | 3 | 0.949 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,039.811 | 1,049.504 | -516.905 | 1,033.811 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,045.163 | 1,064.550 | -516.582 | 1,033.163 | 0.647 | 3 | 0.886 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,233.706 | 1,243.400 | -613.853 | 1,227.706 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,239.144 | 1,258.531 | -613.572 | 1,227.144 | 0.562 | 3 | 0.905 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,034.335 | 1,044.029 | -514.168 | 1,028.335 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,039.148 | 1,058.535 | -513.574 | 1,027.148 | 1.187 | 3 | 0.756 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 863.667 | 873.360 | -428.833 | 857.667 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 868.203 | 887.590 | -428.101 | 856.203 | 1.464 | 3 | 0.691 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 931.598 | 941.292 | -462.799 | 925.598 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 934.330 | 953.717 | -461.165 | 922.330 | 3.268 | 3 | 0.352 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 969.841 | 979.535 | -481.921 | 963.841 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 970.468 | 989.854 | -479.234 | 958.468 | 5.374 | 3 | 0.146 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 990.475 | 1,000.168 | -492.237 | 984.475 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 993.141 | 1,012.528 | -490.571 | 981.141 | 3.333 | 3 | 0.343 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 982.280 | 991.974 | -488.140 | 976.280 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 983.945 | 1,003.331 | -485.972 | 971.945 | 4.336 | 3 | 0.227 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,354.271 | 1,363.964 | -674.135 | 1,348.271 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,355.602 | 1,374.988 | -671.801 | 1,343.602 | 4.669 | 3 | 0.198 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 67 | 3.28 ± 1.15 | 67 | 3.15 ± 1.15 | 0.500 | 0.138 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.33 ± 1.13 | -0.047 | 26 | 3.63 ± 1.13 | -0.495 | 0.335 | -0.309 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 67 | 17.88 ± 2.89 | 67 | 18.09 ± 2.89 | 0.676 | -0.095 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.59 ± 2.76 | 0.133 | 26 | 18.49 ± 2.75 | -0.179 | 0.237 | -0.407 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 67 | 29.94 ± 5.10 | 67 | 30.42 ± 5.10 | 0.589 | -0.164 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.67 ± 4.37 | -0.253 | 26 | 32.18 ± 4.35 | -0.605 | 0.212 | -0.517 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 67 | 11.70 ± 2.06 | 67 | 11.94 ± 2.06 | 0.504 | -0.207 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.11 ± 1.76 | 0.511 | 26 | 12.15 ± 1.75 | -0.179 | 0.033 | -0.897 |
ras_goal | 1st | 67 | 17.21 ± 3.17 | 67 | 17.57 ± 3.17 | 0.514 | -0.185 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.82 ± 2.79 | 0.201 | 26 | 18.70 ± 2.78 | -0.586 | 0.015 | -0.971 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 67 | 13.13 ± 2.91 | 67 | 13.51 ± 2.91 | 0.459 | -0.239 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.49 ± 2.44 | -0.226 | 26 | 14.86 ± 2.42 | -0.869 | 0.041 | -0.882 |
ras_domination | 1st | 67 | 10.21 ± 2.35 | 67 | 9.76 ± 2.35 | 0.271 | 0.262 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.95 ± 2.21 | 0.152 | 26 | 10.81 ± 2.20 | -0.616 | 0.154 | -0.506 |
symptom | 1st | 67 | 29.87 ± 9.32 | 67 | 29.76 ± 9.32 | 0.948 | 0.025 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 29.75 ± 7.31 | 0.027 | 26 | 28.25 ± 7.25 | 0.368 | 0.452 | 0.367 |
slof_work | 1st | 67 | 22.84 ± 4.64 | 67 | 22.31 ± 4.64 | 0.516 | 0.209 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.53 ± 3.89 | 0.123 | 26 | 22.39 ± 3.87 | -0.030 | 0.896 | 0.056 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 67 | 25.00 ± 5.89 | 67 | 25.78 ± 5.89 | 0.447 | -0.263 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.83 ± 4.82 | 0.395 | 26 | 26.50 ± 4.79 | -0.244 | 0.045 | -0.902 |
satisfaction | 1st | 67 | 20.19 ± 7.15 | 67 | 21.61 ± 7.15 | 0.253 | -0.342 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.72 ± 6.17 | -0.127 | 26 | 22.62 ± 6.14 | -0.242 | 0.264 | -0.457 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 67 | 10.81 ± 3.73 | 67 | 11.42 ± 3.73 | 0.343 | -0.319 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.16 ± 3.08 | -0.186 | 26 | 11.54 ± 3.06 | -0.066 | 0.652 | -0.198 |
mhc_social | 1st | 67 | 15.01 ± 5.67 | 67 | 15.43 ± 5.67 | 0.670 | -0.124 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.65 ± 4.94 | -0.188 | 26 | 15.65 ± 4.92 | -0.064 | 0.999 | 0.001 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 67 | 21.91 ± 6.59 | 67 | 22.43 ± 6.59 | 0.647 | -0.137 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.57 ± 5.67 | -0.173 | 26 | 23.03 ± 5.65 | -0.157 | 0.767 | -0.121 |
resilisnce | 1st | 67 | 16.18 ± 4.58 | 67 | 17.37 ± 4.58 | 0.133 | -0.431 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.34 ± 4.01 | -0.060 | 26 | 18.87 ± 4.00 | -0.540 | 0.023 | -0.911 |
social_provision | 1st | 67 | 13.25 ± 2.86 | 67 | 14.12 ± 2.86 | 0.081 | -0.474 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.68 ± 2.55 | 0.315 | 26 | 14.26 ± 2.55 | -0.075 | 0.026 | -0.863 |
els_value_living | 1st | 67 | 16.58 ± 3.16 | 67 | 17.48 ± 3.16 | 0.103 | -0.477 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.85 ± 2.75 | -0.142 | 26 | 17.96 ± 2.74 | -0.258 | 0.142 | -0.592 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 67 | 12.30 ± 3.39 | 67 | 13.28 ± 3.39 | 0.094 | -0.632 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.86 ± 2.69 | -0.358 | 26 | 13.60 ± 2.67 | -0.205 | 0.312 | -0.479 |
els | 1st | 67 | 28.88 ± 5.95 | 67 | 30.76 ± 5.95 | 0.070 | -0.660 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.67 ± 4.79 | -0.278 | 26 | 31.57 ± 4.76 | -0.283 | 0.151 | -0.665 |
social_connect | 1st | 67 | 26.88 ± 9.39 | 67 | 25.63 ± 9.39 | 0.441 | 0.271 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.16 ± 7.64 | -0.277 | 26 | 23.24 ± 7.59 | 0.516 | 0.020 | 1.064 |
shs_agency | 1st | 67 | 13.94 ± 5.17 | 67 | 14.93 ± 5.17 | 0.272 | -0.377 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 14.03 ± 4.24 | -0.034 | 26 | 15.76 ± 4.21 | -0.320 | 0.137 | -0.664 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 67 | 15.84 ± 3.98 | 67 | 16.55 ± 3.98 | 0.300 | -0.356 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.01 ± 3.27 | -0.085 | 26 | 16.68 ± 3.25 | -0.062 | 0.455 | -0.332 |
shs | 1st | 67 | 29.78 ± 8.74 | 67 | 31.48 ± 8.74 | 0.262 | -0.403 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 30.04 ± 7.06 | -0.062 | 26 | 32.43 ± 7.01 | -0.225 | 0.218 | -0.566 |
esteem | 1st | 67 | 12.66 ± 1.55 | 67 | 12.55 ± 1.55 | 0.698 | 0.083 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.70 ± 1.51 | -0.035 | 26 | 12.74 ± 1.51 | -0.148 | 0.929 | -0.030 |
mlq_search | 1st | 67 | 14.66 ± 3.52 | 67 | 15.00 ± 3.52 | 0.574 | -0.145 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.84 ± 3.21 | -0.077 | 26 | 14.95 ± 3.20 | 0.023 | 0.905 | -0.045 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 67 | 13.36 ± 4.20 | 67 | 13.75 ± 4.20 | 0.593 | -0.158 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.61 ± 3.63 | -0.104 | 26 | 14.00 ± 3.62 | -0.105 | 0.696 | -0.159 |
mlq | 1st | 67 | 28.01 ± 6.99 | 67 | 28.75 ± 6.99 | 0.545 | -0.171 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.46 ± 6.14 | -0.104 | 26 | 28.97 ± 6.12 | -0.052 | 0.761 | -0.120 |
empower | 1st | 67 | 18.96 ± 4.32 | 67 | 19.70 ± 4.32 | 0.319 | -0.356 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.14 ± 3.49 | -0.086 | 26 | 19.41 ± 3.47 | 0.138 | 0.773 | -0.132 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 67 | 14.51 ± 2.51 | 67 | 14.66 ± 2.51 | 0.731 | -0.083 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.48 ± 2.34 | 0.017 | 26 | 15.12 ± 2.34 | -0.256 | 0.320 | -0.356 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 67 | 11.97 ± 3.15 | 67 | 11.04 ± 3.15 | 0.091 | 0.522 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.62 ± 2.68 | 0.200 | 26 | 11.02 ± 2.67 | 0.015 | 0.418 | 0.337 |
sss_affective | 1st | 67 | 10.06 ± 3.49 | 67 | 9.66 ± 3.49 | 0.505 | 0.211 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.21 ± 2.95 | -0.080 | 26 | 8.65 ± 2.93 | 0.528 | 0.054 | 0.818 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 67 | 9.90 ± 3.69 | 67 | 9.22 ± 3.69 | 0.294 | 0.325 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 9.88 ± 3.14 | 0.006 | 26 | 8.54 ± 3.13 | 0.328 | 0.122 | 0.647 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 67 | 8.21 ± 3.61 | 67 | 7.91 ± 3.61 | 0.633 | 0.149 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 8.93 ± 3.06 | -0.358 | 26 | 7.28 ± 3.05 | 0.314 | 0.052 | 0.821 |
sss | 1st | 67 | 28.16 ± 9.96 | 67 | 26.79 ± 9.96 | 0.426 | 0.273 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 28.96 ± 8.17 | -0.159 | 26 | 24.55 ± 8.12 | 0.445 | 0.050 | 0.877 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(175.44) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.26)
2st
t(173.98) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(168.05) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.19)
2st
t(167.91) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.39)
ras_confidence
1st
t(151.00) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.22)
2st
t(168.90) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.86 to 3.87)
ras_willingness
1st
t(150.26) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.94)
2st
t(169.62) = 2.15, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.98)
ras_goal
1st
t(154.21) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.44)
2st
t(166.57) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.39)
ras_reliance
1st
t(148.62) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.37)
2st
t(171.44) = 2.06, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.69)
ras_domination
1st
t(164.61) = -1.10, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.35)
2st
t(166.18) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.06)
symptom
1st
t(142.87) = -0.06, p = 0.948, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.29 to 3.08)
2st
t(179.74) = -0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-5.46 to 2.44)
slof_work
1st
t(148.82) = -0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.06)
2st
t(171.21) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 1.97)
slof_relationship
1st
t(146.35) = 0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.79)
2st
t(174.48) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.26)
satisfaction
1st
t(151.80) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.86)
2st
t(168.21) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.44 to 5.23)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(147.28) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.88)
2st
t(173.17) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.05)
mhc_social
1st
t(153.11) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.35)
2st
t(167.23) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.68 to 2.67)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(151.66) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.77)
2st
t(168.32) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.61 to 3.53)
resilisnce
1st
t(153.81) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.76)
2st
t(166.79) = 2.30, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.35 to 4.70)
social_provision
1st
t(156.63) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.84)
2st
t(165.58) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.96)
els_value_living
1st
t(152.87) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.97)
2st
t(167.39) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.60)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(143.94) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.14)
2st
t(178.13) = 1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.20)
els
1st
t(144.98) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.91)
2st
t(176.52) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.70 to 4.49)
social_connect
1st
t(145.84) = -0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.46 to 1.95)
2st
t(175.23) = -2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.06, 95% CI (-9.05 to -0.80)
shs_agency
1st
t(146.59) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.75)
2st
t(174.14) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 4.02)
shs_pathway
1st
t(146.65) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.08)
2st
t(174.05) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.44)
shs
1st
t(145.23) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.69)
2st
t(176.15) = 1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.42 to 6.20)
esteem
1st
t(171.92) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.43)
2st
t(170.72) = 0.09, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.86)
mlq_search
1st
t(159.47) = 0.56, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.55)
2st
t(165.17) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.85)
mlq_presence
1st
t(152.26) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.82)
2st
t(167.84) = 0.39, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.36)
mlq
1st
t(154.19) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.65 to 3.12)
2st
t(166.58) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.81 to 3.84)
empower
1st
t(145.37) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.22)
2st
t(175.93) = 0.29, p = 0.773, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.16)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(163.63) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.00)
2st
t(165.83) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(150.54) = -1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.15)
2st
t(169.34) = -0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)
sss_affective
1st
t(149.44) = -0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.79)
2st
t(170.49) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.03)
sss_behavior
1st
t(150.40) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.59)
2st
t(169.47) = -1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(150.00) = -0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.93)
2st
t(169.89) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 0.01)
sss
1st
t(146.64) = -0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.03)
2st
t(174.06) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.83 to 0.00)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(90.91) = 2.00, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.00 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(80.41) = 0.71, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.51)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(64.11) = 2.29, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.29)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(63.52) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(66.71) = 2.23, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.15)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(62.26) = 3.27, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.53 to 2.18)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(76.51) = 2.41, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.93)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(58.08) = -1.36, p = 0.355, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.74 to 0.71)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(62.41) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.40)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.57) = 0.91, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.30)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(64.74) = 0.92, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.19)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(61.25) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.15)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(65.80) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.00)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(64.63) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.61)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(66.38) = 2.06, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.95)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(68.79) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.61) = 0.98, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.47)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.83) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.16)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.58) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(60.19) = -1.93, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.87 to 0.09)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.74) = 1.20, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.23)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.79) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.20)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.75) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.32 to 3.21)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(85.44) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.81)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(71.37) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(65.11) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.55)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(66.70) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.46)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(59.86) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.83)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(75.48) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.38)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(63.74) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(62.88) = -1.99, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.01)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(63.63) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.42)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(63.32) = -1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.43)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(60.78) = -1.67, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.94 to 0.45)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(89.58) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(79.48) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.80)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(63.73) = 0.97, p = 0.669, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.24)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(63.17) = -1.96, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(66.26) = -0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.61)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(61.95) = 0.87, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.17)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(75.72) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.60)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(57.89) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.07)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(62.09) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.00)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.31) = -1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.39)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(64.34) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.68)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(60.97) = 0.71, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(65.38) = 0.73, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.39)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(64.24) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.63)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(65.94) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.59)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(68.26) = -1.23, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.19) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.62) = 1.35, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.34) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.29)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.94) = 1.05, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.47) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.46)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.52) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.23)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.52) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.48)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(84.32) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.66)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(70.76) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.39)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(64.71) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(66.24) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.64)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(59.62) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.28)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(74.72) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.87)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(63.38) = -0.77, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(62.55) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.15)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(63.28) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.06)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(62.97) = 1.37, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(60.51) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 3.44)